1:3 Dear friends, although I have been eager to write to you about our common salvation, I now feel compelled instead to write to encourage you to contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

The Greek term agapeotoi (“friends”) was the common way a father would address his beloved child (G. Green 52). The term implies the familial bond that exists among Christians. The author had either intended to write about their common salvation or  he was already in the process of writing but ceased in order to compose this letter instead (G. Green 53). The entrance of the heretics compelled Jude to write this letter. The author uses athletic imagery when he encourages the readers to “contend” (epagonizesthai) for the faith, meaning the gospel (Bauckham 32-33; G. Green 56). The contest is not merely a defense of the gospel, it is an offensive struggle that involves promoting the gospel’s advance and victory by the living out of the Christian life (Bauckham 32). The phrase “once for all” (hapax) points to a perfection or completion: the “gospel of Jesus Christ has received its full explication through the apostles” (Schreiner 436; cf. G. Green 57). That the faith was once for all entrusted to the saints means that “(1) no new revelation can change the essence of this faith, and (2) it is the faith that they have received (the word for ‘entrusted’ indicates the passing on of a tradition) from their teachers, possibly including Jude” (Davids 42).

1:4 For certain men have secretly slipped in among you – men who long ago were marked out for the condemnation I am about to describe – ungodly men who have turned the grace of our God into a license for evil and who deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

The phrase “certain men have secretly slipped in among you” (pareisedysan gar tines anthropoi) impugns the motives of the heretics (G. Green 57). The language suggests the heretics may have been itinerant teachers or prophets (cf. 2 Cor 11:4, 13; 2 Jn 10; Didache 11-12; Ignatius Eph. 9; Bauckham 35). The content of verses 5-19 suggests Jude is stating the condemnation of the heretics was marked out in Jewish prophecy (Davids 43-44). “Jude encounters the teaching of ‘cheap grace,’ that is, grace without repentance or even grace that grants license to sin more than before, in the interlopers, and it becomes one of the charges against them” (Davids 45). The kind of evil in question is probably sexual immorality (6-8, 16; Bauckham 38). By calling Jesus Christ both Master and Lord Jude highlights the audacity of those who deny him: they “are both disowning him as Master and flouting his authority as universal Judge” (Bauckham 39). Since the heretics still remained in the Christian community (12) we should see their denial not as doctrinal denial but as ethical denial (cf. Titus 1:16).

Bibliography

Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. Word Books, 1983.

Davids, Peter H. The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude. Kindle Edition. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006.

Green, Gene. Jude & 2 Peter. Baker Academic, 2008.

Green, Michael. 2 Peter & Jude. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007.

Schreiner, Thomas R. 1, 2 Peter, Jude. Holman Reference, 2003.

1:1 From Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and brother of James, to those who are called, wrapped in the love of God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ.

The author identifies himself as Jude (Ioudas), the brother of James. It was extremely unusual to identify oneself by a reference to one’s brother rather than one’s father. “The only theory which does explain it is that which identifies Jesus as the James whom everyone knew” (Bauckham 23). This James, therefore, is the well-known James the Just, the brother of Jesus and the leader of the Jerusalem Church (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; Jas 1:1; Gal 1:19; 2:9; 1 Cor 15:7). This means the author identifies himself indirectly as Jude, one of the four brothers of Jesus (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3). He did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (Mk 3:21, 31; Jn 7:3, 5) but he was a believer after the resurrection (Acts 1:14). Whether he became a believer because of the resurrection or had become a believer before that point is unknown. According to 1 Cor 9:5 Jesus’ brothers, probably including Jude, were itinerant missionaries.

Despite being the brother of Jesus, Jude now identifies himself as a slave (doulos) of Jesus Christ (cf. Rom 1:1; Gal 1:10; Phil 1:1; Titus 1:1; Col 4:12; Jas 1:1; 2 Pet 1:1). “His authority to address his readers does not rest on his kinship to Jesus, which he omits to mention, but on his commission to serve Jesus Christ” (Bauckham 27).

The location of the readers is not specified. Instead their condition is described in a triad, a common feature of the epistle. The content of the letter makes it clear it was written for a specific circumstance and not as a catholic epistle addressed to all Christians. The first description of the readers is that they are called by God.

This calling is further defined by two participles, each connected to a member of the Trinity. The first speaks of Christians as those who are loved by or in God the Father. Paul says the same in Rom 1:7 (although he uses a different grammatical form). The point Paul makes and that Jude would make if we accept the translation “by” is that God called us out of sheer love. It is not that Jesus delivered us and the Father had to accept us, but that the Father loved us and in that love called us. Yet what would the other translational possibility mean, being loved “in God the Father” (NRSV; the NIV has “by”)? Certainly the NIV translation “by” is possible (i.e., it translates the Greek word en instrumentally), but that would be an unusual way of expressing the subject of a passive verb (normally hypo is used). That leads us to suspect that the NRSV is correct with its “in God the Father.” Could this phrase be expressing something similar to the Johannine references to Christians being “in God” (John 17:21 ["in us"]; 1 John 2:24 ["abide ... in the Father"]; 3:24 ["abide in him"]; 4:13, 15, 16)? This is probably the case in that Jude 21 commands believers, “keep yourselves in the love of God” (NRSV), and 1 John 4:16 connects abiding in the Father to the Father’s love for us and our abiding in love. Thus Jude is indicating that we are loved by God (God is the implied subject of the verbal noun “called” as well as of the participles) as we are “in God.” (Davids 37)

A translation difficulty also arises with the phrase “kept by Jesus Christ.” The consensus among commentators and most modern translators is that the phrase should be translated “kept for Jesus Christ,” that is, kept until the day of redemption for Jesus Christ (cf. RSV, NASB, NRSV). The syntax is again difficult, and certainty is impossible. Those who support this rendering argue that if the agency of Jesus Christ were in view, we would expect the preposition “by” to be inserted with either the words en or hypo. Furthermore, it makes sense to say that Jude emphasized God the Father as the one who both loves and keeps (cf. v. 24). Finally, such an interpretation fits with the eschatological flavor of the text, emphasizing that believers are preserved “for Jesus Christ” until the final judgment. Despite the arguments supporting “kept for Jesus Christ,” the interpretation proposed by the NIV (“kept by Jesus Christ”) is preferable. According to this view, the words “Jesus Christ” (Iesou Christou) denote agency, the notion of being kept by Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ is the agent, then the two clauses are symmetrical: “loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ.” Seeing the dative as one of agency is reasonable and fits with Wallace’s own description of a dative of agency: (1) the dative noun must be personal; (2) the person specified by the dative noun must be portrayed as exercising volition; (3) a perfect passive verb is present; and (4) the agent of the passive verb can also function as the subject of an active verb, while the dative of means normally cannot. Verse 1 fulfills all of these requirements. The dative is personal (Jesus Christ), he exercises volition, we have a perfect passive (participle), and the agent also could function as the subject (Jesus Christ keeps).

Whatever interpretation one adopts, the main emphasis of the two participial clauses is clear. Those whom God has called to himself are loved by him and kept until the day of salvation. The grace of God that called believers to faith will sustain them until the end. The emphasis of God’s grace does not cancel out human responsibility. In v. 21 the readers are exhorted, “Keep yourselves in God’s love.” God’s grace does not promote human passivity and laxity. It should stir the readers to concerted action. Nonetheless, the ultimate reason believers will persevere against the inroads of the intruders is the grace of God by which he set his love upon believers, called them to be his people, and pledged to preserve them until the end. (Schreiner 430-431)

1:2 May mercy, peace, and love be lavished on you!

The prayer wish anticipates themes developed in the rest of the letter. Jude prayed for mercy because his readers would resist the opponents only by God’s mercy and because they needed to experience God’s mercy so that they could extend the same to those captivated by the false teachers (vv. 22-23). They needed peace because the interlopers caused division (v. 19) and introduced strife and grumbling wherever they went (vv. 10, 16). They needed love because the intruders cared only for themselves and abused the very purpose of the love feasts (v. 12). Jude prayed that mercy, peace, and love would be multiplied because an abundance of these qualities was needed at a stressful time in the church’s life. (Schreiner 432)

Bibliography

Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. Word Books, 1983.

Davids, Peter H. The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude. Kindle Edition. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006.

Green, Gene. Jude & 2 Peter. Baker Academic, 2008.

Green, Michael. 2 Peter & Jude. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007.

Schreiner, Thomas R. 1, 2 Peter, Jude. Holman Reference, 2003.

In the case of 1 Peter the issues of authorship, date, and provenance are inter-related. A decision on one item can influence one’s decision on another item. The traditional view is that the apostle Peter wrote the epistle in Rome prior to his martyrdom, which occured around AD 65 (Tertullian, Scorp. 15; Origen in Eusebius, Hist eccl. 3.1.2; Lactantius, Mort. 2; Macarius Magnus, Unigenitus 3.22, 4.4; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.25.5-8). However, the traditional view is challenged by many modern scholars who believe the epistle to be pseudonymous, meaning the epistle was written in the name of Peter but by someone other than Peter.

Provenance

According to 1 Peter 5:13 the epistle was written from “Babylon.” At first we might suppose that the epistle was written from a place literally called Babylon; either Babylon in Mesopotamia or Babylon in Egypt. Closer inspection reveals that neither candidate is plausible. Babylon, the former capital of the Babylonian Empire, was a shadow of its former self and was nearly desolate by the time of Trajan’s visit in AD 115 (Philo, Legat. 282; Josephus, Ant. 15.14, 39; Pliny, Nat. 6.121-122; Dio Cass., Hist. Rom. 68.30.1; Strabo, Geogr. 16.739). There is no evidence of any connection of Peter, Silvanus, or Mark with Mesopotamia. A military stronghold on the Nile Delta, near Memphis, was also called Babylon (Josephus, Ant. 2.315; Strabo, Geogr. 17.1.30). While a later tradition links Mark to Alexandria in Egypt (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.16.1) there is no evidence linking Peter or Silvanus to Egypt. In fact neither of these Babylons were associated with Christian communities in general.

A more fruitful approach is to realize that “Babylon” was used as a reference to Rome in Jewish and Christian literature (2 Bar. 11:1; 67:7; 77:12, 17, 19; 79:1; 80:4; 4 Ezra 3:1-5:20; 10:19-48; 11:1-12:51; 15:43-63; 16:1-34; Sib. Or. 3:63-74, 303-313; 5:137-178; Rev 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21). Peter, Mark, and the epistle itself were linked to Rome in subsequent early tradition (Col 4:10; Phlm 24; 2 Tim 4:11; 1 Clem. 5:1-7; Ignatius, Rom. 4:3; Irenaeus, Haer. 3.1.5; Origen, Comm. Matt. 1; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.14.6; 2.15.2; 2.25.1-8; 3.39.14-15). There is no competing tradition to suggest the epistle was written in any other location. A Roman location also explains similarities of thought between 1 Peter and other writings from Rome (e.g., Romans, Hebrews, Mark, Luke-Acts, 1 Clement, Hermas). Therefore I agree with the vast majority of scholars that 1 Peter was written in Rome.

Date

No explicit date for when the letter was written is provided in 1 Peter itself. Other forms of evidence allow us to provide a window in which the epistle was written. This evidence suggests the epistle was written before about AD 65:

• Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians, written in about AD 112-114, clearly alludes to 1 Peter (Schreiner 22).
• The description of charisms (4:10-11) and church order (5:1-5) are too vague to be precise but they are a better fit for the first century than the second century.
• By the time Revelation was written, in about AD 95, the conditions of Christians in Asia Minor had deteriorated from what they were when 1 Peter was written. Some believers had been put to death (Rev 2:13; 6:9-10; 16:6; 18:24; 19:2) and the depiction of Rome is very negative (Rev 12-18). On the other hand, 1 Peter refers to verbal harassment and takes a neutral view towards Rome (2:13-17).
• Pliny the Younger (Ep. 10.97), writing around AD 111-112 about the Christians in Asia Minor, notes that a Christian had renounced his faith 20 years ago (ca. AD 90). 1 Peter does not mention anyone renouncing the faith despite knowledge of harassment and suffering.
• Knowledge of Peter’s death would have been known to the letter’s recipients. Therefore, even if 1 Peter was written by someone other than Peter, it is difficult to see how it could have been passed off as Petrine if it was written after the apostle’s death around AD 65.

Determining the lower bound of the date range is more difficult:

• The close and numerous correspondences between 1 Peter and Romans suggests to some scholars that 1 Peter had knowledge of Romans (this is not to say that 1 Peter was literarily dependent on Romans). If these scholars are correct then 1 Peter must have been written after Romans, which was written around AD 56-58 (Elliott 136-137). But it is also possible the similarities reflect early Christian themes in general.
• As noted above, the term “Babylon” in 5:13 is a reference to Rome. Since this usage is only attested in documents written after AD 70, when Rome destroyed Jerusalem like Babylon had in 587 BC, many scholars consider this a strong indication that 1 Peter was written after AD 70. However, the above writings were politically subversive apocalyptic literature while 1 Peter is an epistle containing nothing subversive (2:13-17). As noted in the commentary, the reference to Babylon forms an inclusio with “disapora” in 1:1 and functions to identify both author and reader as “exiles.” These differences prevent the reference to “Babylon” from requiring a date after Peter’s death.

It is not known when, exactly, Peter arrived in Rome. That would establish the earliest possible date of the letter. I favor a date between AD 60 and AD 65.

Authorship

The author explicitly identifies himself as the apostle Peter in 1:1. This identification was unanimously agreed upon by the early church (2 Pet 3:1; Irenaeus, Haer. 4.9.2; 4.16.5; 5.7.2; Tertullian, Scorp. 12; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.3.4; 3.4.2; 3.25.2; 3.39.16; 4.14.9; 6.25.5; 6.25.8). It wasn’t until the 19th century that scholars began to question the authorship of the letter (Robinson 164). Peter (Acts 2:9-11; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.1; Epiphanius, Pan. 27.7; Jerome Vir. ill. 1; Acts of Peter and Andrew [Peter and Andrew in Cappadocia and Pontus]), Silvanus (Acts 15:40-18:22; 2 Cor 1:19; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1), and Mark (Acts 12:25-14:28) had early contact with people from Asia Minor. This is consistent with the letter’s addressees (1:1) and the lack of information about these figures as if they were already known to the recipients.

Despite the unanimous witness of our earliest sources many modern scholars doubt 1 Peter was written by the apostle Peter. The primary reason for this doubt is the high literary quality of the Greek in the epistle. This suggests to them that the author had a good education (Achtemeier 2ff., Elliott 120), the kind of education the apostle Peter did not have. Acts 4:13 calls Peter unschooled but this merely means he did not have a formal rabbinic education. The strongest evidence that Peter did not have the required education in Greek is the later tradition which notes Mark acted as Peter’s interpreter in composing the Gospel of Mark (Irenaeus, Haer. 3.1.1; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15).

But this is not as decisive an objection to Petrine authorship as it first appears. In New Testament times, writers sometimes used a secretary (amanuensis) to write a letter (Rom 16:22; 1 Cor 16:21; Gal 6:11; Phlm 19; Pliny, Ep. 9.36). If Peter wrote the epistle with the assistance of a secretary this explains both the early tradition attributing the letter to Peter and the quality of the Greek. While it is tempting to believe Silvanus was Peter’s secretary, the language in 5:12 indicates only that Silvanus delivered the letter, not that he composed it.

A related objection notes that the Old Testament quotations are from the Greek LXX, not the Hebrew or Aramaic text. But this can be explained by the fact that the letter’s recipients probably used the LXX and its use would make the text more understandable to them.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I agree with nearly all scholars that 1 Peter was written in Rome. However, I follow the traditional view that the epistle was written by Peter (with the help of a secretary) between AD 60 and 65. The arguments against Petrine authorship do not overcome the clear testimony from the earliest sources.

Bibliography

Achtemeier, Paul J. 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter. Minneapolis Minn.: Fortress Press, 1996.

Elliott, John H. 1 Peter. Yale University Press, 2001.

Freedman, D. N. Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Jobes, Karen H. 1 Peter. Kindle Edition. Baker Academic & Brazos Press, 2005.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. 1 Peter. Waco: Thomas Nelson, 1988.

Robinson, John A. T. Redating the New Testament. Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2001.

Schreiner, Thomas R. 1, 2 Peter, Jude. Holman Reference, 2003.

You meet someone who claims that there are hundreds of millions of volcanic eruptions taking place all around the world. Hundreds of millions. And yet, suppose that somehow, you had never seen one. In fact, nobody you know has ever seen one. Even the person insisting that here are hundreds of millions of eruptions has never seen one.

But I know people who have witnessed a miracle, Keener has witnessed multiple miracles, Keener’s friends and family have witnessed miracles, and so on. The analogy is not apt. Also note that I am basing my statement on multiple surveys from around the world while he is basing his statement on, apparently, his personal experience and the experience of those he interacts with regularly.

But how have I misunderstood his position? . . . So determining whether or not any of these “miracles” actually happened is “straying too far off course.” We have “credible, modern witnesses,” but it doesn’t matter whether any of them is telling the truth or not.

Here’s a perfect example of how DD misunderstand things on multiple levels. (1) Determining whether a supernatural agent actually acted is irrelevant to whether strange (for lack of a better term) healings have been witnessed by modern people. (2) A witness can accurately tell us what they observed but still provide the wrong interpretation of events. The healing is what is observed. Claiming God healed you is the interpretation. (3) Obviously whether the witnesses of miracles are interpreting the events correctly does matter, it just isn’t relevant to the point of my original post.

If Jayman produced such a genuine miracle, it would overthrow my claim completely, once and for all, but he doesn’t want to “stray” into refuting me because… because…

Because the original post was long enough without trying to cover even more topics. DD hasn’t even addressed all the other points in it yet. If he can’t follow the argument to this point he isn’t going to follow it any further.

Ignorance is the best defense against having your preferred beliefs exposed as false, and that’s why looking too closely at the truth of these alleged miracles would be “straying too far off course.”

Here’s the dishonesty again. I say, “anyone can verify the accounts (directly if the witnesses are still living or through earlier documentation) but they have to do some work.” This is somehow read as telling the reader not to look closer.

Jayman quotes from a book by Craig Keener, a 2-volume set actually, in which the latter attempts to document genuine miracles happening in the real world.

Actually that is not the primary purpose of Keener’s book (see my review).

We’ll get to Keener in a minute, but first let’s ask, why did Jayman have to go to a third party in his search for a miracle with which to refute my claims? Hundreds of millions of miracles are supposedly happening, and yet my observation remains true: Jayman himself does not have genuine miracles, he has only stories, which he had to go to a third party to obtain.

I didn’t have to go to a third-party. Keener didn’t have to go to a third party either. He includes his own eyewitness testimony of miracles. Apparently I am at fault for pointing the reader to a valuable resource. Of course, even hearing directly from the eyewitness still involves the witness telling a story. To point out that miracle accounts are “stories” does not advance the argument. The American Revolution is a “story” but that doesn’t mean it’s fiction.

Now, what about this third party? Is he a “modern, trustworthy witness,” as Jayman claims? Does he know how to distinguish between rumor and fact? Can he properly document the stories he tells, so that other researchers can easily follow up on his research and fact-check his reports?

Keener traveled the world to interview people himself and obtained medical documentation in many cases. Footnotes are in the book for you to fact-check his reports. He has done more fact-checking than most of us could dream of. Who is talking from ignorance here?

Doctors, of course, are better off being pessimistic, because if they promise a full recovery and the patient subsequently dies, they can be sued for malpractice, whereas it only makes people happy when negative expectations fail to materialize.

This cuts both ways. Why do 55% of doctors say they have witnessed inexplicable healings when it risks a malpractice suit charging them with a wrongful diagnosis and associated treatments? Why are doctors more likely than “superstitious” laymen to say that they have witnessed an inexplicable healing?

Check it out, this one has a name. Where’s the contact information, though?

What good would the contact information do? Josiah Mataika would just tell DD his story and then DD would dismiss him because he told a story.

Jayman would like to send us all to China on a wild goose chase, looking for genuine miracles, mind you.

Or you could read Keener’s book and check his references. Two of the accounts I cited are from Lourdes and some information for them is online. You don’t even have to leave your house.

Jayman doesn’t want to “stray” into finding out whether any of these stories is really true. Far safer to throw up a huge wall of hearsay and rumor and superstition, and then send the skeptics on an endless snipe hunt.

Actually I recommend readers look into things themselves. However, I know the average self-proclaimed skeptic has no intention of investigating such matters with any seriousness.

His latest post opens with a mischaracterization:

Some believers like to think that ignorance is their ally, that nobody knows everything, so they’re safe (they hope) in assuming that no skeptic can know for sure that miracles do not happen. Somewhere out in the vast body of things people don’t know—i.e. somewhere out in the great expanse of human ignorance—they can surely find a place to hide some undetectable and unverifiable miracle that is still somehow real.

I’ve already pointed out to him that there are documented and verifiable miracle accounts from eyewitnesses. My point (that the NT accounts cannot be dismissed as based on eyewitness accounts on the basis of a lack of miracles in the present) is based on positive evidence, not ignorance.

He then presents the first argument for his position:

The first prerequisite for observing real-life miracles is the absence of any overriding factors making miracles impossible or undesirable. . . . The expected rate of miraculous interventions, therefore, ought to be fairly high. God is actively interested and involved in our day-to-day lives (or so men tell us anyway) and there’s no good reason for Him not to do the things that will save souls and fulfill Biblical prophecies about how He heals the sick and comforts the afflicted and so on. Likewise the extent of these miraculous manifestations ought to be universal, i.e. they should not be limited to remote regions where superstition is high and education is low. This whole show is (allegedly) God’s idea in the first place, and He’s supposed to be the prime driver behind it all, so real-world miracles ought to be fairly common and easy to observe.

Can we arrange these statements into a valid argument? Maybe:

1. If God exists, he frequently has a desire, that overrides all competing desires, to work an easily-observable miracle (premise).
2. If God has a desire to work a miracle and this desire overrides all competing desires, then God will work a miracle (premise).
3. Therefore, if God exists, miracles ought to occur at a fairly high rate and be easy to observe (from 1 and 2).
4. Miracles do not occur at a fairly high rate or they are not easy to observe (premise).
5. Therefore, God does not exist (from 3 and 4 and assuming 2 is self-evident).

But the argument is not sound. One can object to 4 on the grounds that miracles do occur at a “fairly high rate” and are easy to observe. But let’s grant that 4 is true for the sake of argument. The first premise is still begging the question. The atheist has not and can not determine that 1 is true. Trying to come at the miracle question from this angle is futile. One must work from the miracle accounts backwards to God. DD senses his argument is weak so provides another one:

But let’s say that . . . God was limited to performing only a very few genuine supernatural miracles. What observations would be possible under those circumstances? Consider the purpose of miracles, as given in the Bible. The whole point of the miracle is to glorify God (and incidentally to edify believers). Obviously, a miracle that happens out where no one will ever know about it is a miracle that won’t glorify Him very much, or edify anyone. It has to be a miracle that people see and report.

First, a miracle that happens to only one person still edifies that one person. Second, I’ve already noted the statistics showing that God’s actions are allegedly observed quite regularly and by numerous people.

He continues to add to this weak argument by stating that if miracles truly occurred Christians would tout only the genuine miracles and not the frauds. But we don’t do this he claims. The only support he offers on this point is to claim that the few accounts I gave earlier are based on hearsay. Those who have read the past couple posts will know that he is lying on this point. Is it too much to ask that atheists at least present the evidence honestly?

Thinking you know God’s mind and basing your arguments on blatant falsehoods is not convincing. I urge readers to study miracle accounts on their own. I’ve already referred to Keener’s Miracles as a starting point. It does not bode well for atheism when its adherents have to resist examining accounts deeply and resort to distorting the evidence.

He writes:

He talks about taking a neutral approach towards miracles, but he wants to begin by declaring that anyone who observes the lack of verifiable miracles is merely assuming that miracles do not happen. . . . In this case, we do not assume that miracles cannot happen, we simply observe that they do not.

The problem with this response is that the atheist’s argument is invalid. The argument appears to be: I personally have not observed a miracle, therefore no one has observed a miracle. If this is not obviously fallacious reasoning to you then consider another argument of the same form: I have not personally observed a volcano erupting, therefore volcanoes do not erupt. Recall from the last post that hundreds of millions of people claim to have directly witnessed or experienced a miracle. One person’s experiences do not dictate the experiences of others or what is possible.

Moving on, he writes:

Since we are comparing the stories in the Gospel with real-world observations, he can easily debunk the observation that the long-dead are not raised and the congenitally-blind are not supernaturally healed by simply providing us with the name, address, and phone number of a modern day individual who was brought back to life after having been lifeless (no heartbeat, respiration, or brain activity for 72 hours or more), or who was born blind and then in early adulthood was miraculously (and documentably) restored to full vision. He does not do so, despite his desire to debunk the skeptical observation and despite the effectiveness with which this would indeed revolutionize the whole discussion.

In the last post I included a few quotations of modern miracle accounts. It is true that I (really Keener) did not provide addresses and phone numbers, but I did include names and Keener personally contacted many of the people mentioned in his book. There is nothing stopping the atheist from from reviewing Keener’s sources. For the interested, Keener documents numerous cases of the blind gaining sight and the dead rising (although I only recall the one cited case of someone dead for more than 72 hours but brain damage should set in a few minutes after death anyway).

Thus, it is fairly obvious that he himself is among those who, if they were truly neutral, would have to admit that they do not observe such miracles happening in real life.

Let me be clear that my neutrality towards miracles in the last post was done to prevent the post from straying too far off course. The main point I was making was that the kinds of miracles narrated in the NT are narrated by credible, modern eyewitnesses and, therefore, the presence of miracle accounts in the NT is not sufficient reason to doubt that the NT documents are rooted in eyewitness testimony. DD is drifting into a discussion of whether miracles actually happen but not addressing the thrust of my post. What the neutral observer must admit is that strange (for lack of a better term) healings have occurred and been documented even in modern times. Skeptics who ignore this fact and blithely assert miracles do not happen are shielding their readers from relevant evidence.

What he does offer is hearsay: unverifiable stories that some third party (or fourth party, or nth party) has reported about certain situations that “might” be miraculous (or else just urban legends—there’s not enough information given to allow fact-checking).

If you read Keener’s book and have the desire to investigate individual miracle claims contained inside you certainly could. Many of the stories have been verified first-hand by Keener himself and there is no reason, in principle, that the skeptic could not do the very work Keener himself did. DD should just admit he has not read the book and has not attempted to investigate any of the miracles.

In the process, he kindly documents for us just how low Christian standards are when it comes to what kind of “evidence” they’re willing to accept as a basis for believing in miracles.

What kind of evidence is Keener providing? While each case varies, there are healings that: (1) are witnessed by multiple individuals, including skeptics; (2) documented by medical professionals; and (3) inexplicable given our current understanding of science and medicine. Perhaps the skeptic will insist that this is still too low a bar to accept miracles, but I think it is clear that it is not a particularly low standard. Again, keep in mind the main purpose of the previous post mentioned above.

Jayman himself will only commit to the possibility that these stories claim miracles that “may still happen today” (emphasis his). He can’t verify them either, but other Christians still report them as true.

What I actually wrote was: “Craig S. Keener catalogs modern eyewitness testimony that suggests, at the very least, that the healing of those blind from birth and the raising of the dead (among other miracles) may still happen today.” I intentionally stuck with a conservative claim so that the post would not go off course as noted above. Anyone can verify the accounts (directly if the witnesses are still living or through earlier documentation) but they have to do some work. It is much easier to assert miracles don’t happen than to explain well documented cases in a purely naturalistic manner.

But if we’re truly neutral, we ought to admit that such fanciful speculations do not change the fact of our real-world observations. And that fact is simply that we do not see miracles happening in the real world.

Who is “we”? As noted in my previous post hundreds of millions of people would vehemently disagree with DD and state that they have witnessed miracles. He doesn’t examine a single claim and just dismisses them all out of hand. A witness to the miraculous could make a basic argument like so: I have witnessed a miracle therefore miracles are possible. Unlike the atheist argument above, this is at least valid (though the skeptic will doubt the first premise is true).

P.S. He also ignores other points I made in regard to his previous post. Perhaps he is saving them for another post but you may want to check my previous post if you have not already read it.

DD begins:

Christianity is, above all else, a story. . . . Miracles like healing someone born blind, or resurrecting someone who died three days ago, only happen in the tales told from the pulpit and in ancient parchments.

Notice how it is merely assumed that miracles do not happen in the present. It is hardly surprising that when you presuppose metaphysical naturalism, and you judge the Gospels on this basis, that the Gospels are determined to be of questionable historical value. But what if we take an approach that is neutral concerning the occurrence of miracles? Craig S. Keener catalogs modern eyewitness testimony that suggests, at the very least, that the healing of those blind from birth and the raising of the dead (among other miracles) may still happen today. Here is a sample:

Josiah Mataika from Fiji noted that when his aunt gave birth, the baby was blind and expected to live only a few days; his grandmother, a pastor, led the family to pray and fast in hopes that God might intervene. The child’s eyes were healed, and she is now in third grade. (Keener 294-295)

Yet however one chooses to explain them, many stories from China cannot be simply gossip; they derive from persons directly affected by them. A young man recounted that as a boy, he was given up by the doctor for dead, but when his father desperately cried out to God and dedicated the boy to his service, the boy quickly recovered. A Three-Self pastor reported that he found in his church believers praying over a girl that the local doctor had just pronounced dead; the desperate mother had brought her to the church. The girl recovered. (Keener 301)

[Dr. J.] Ayo[deji Adewuya] offered his eyewitness account of a nature miracle and then narrated how his newborn son, pronounced dead at birth by a midwife on January 1, 1981, was raised after twenty minutes of prayer. The son, none the worse for the experience, grew up and has completed his master of science degree. (Keener 310)

I have seen the eyes of the blind opened immediately; one was an old man, one a child of six years of age born blind. Others have told me that they had begun to see. At the last morning’s service a Bengali father ran after me to show me that his son, for twelve years a paralytic, and one of the stretcher-cases who could not move when brought to Mr. Hickson, was walking away from the cathedral. (Keener 407 quoting Hickson, Heal, 65-66)

In May 1973, in Ogoniland, Nigeria, the eyes of a five- or six-year-old girl born blind looked like empty sockets with skin draped over them; no slits were visible in the eyelids. When Geoffrey Numbere, whom we encountered in chapter 9, prayed, she opened her eyes and could see; a blind boy was also healed at the time, and much of the village of Dere was converted. (Keener 516)

An Indonesian Christian author recounts that he witnessed the instant healing of a seventeen-year-old man blind and deaf from birth, known to everyone in the village. (Keener 520)

One book documents a boy in Kinshasa, Congo, returning to life hours after being pronounced dead and left in the morgue, at the moment that Christian evangelist Mahesh Chavda prayed. In this case the source provides medical attestation, including photographs of the raised boy and his earlier death certificate. Others tell of a local minister in the same country who raised a woman dead four days, despite the unbearable stench beforehand. (Keener 553)

Nevertheless, even if we explain these sorts of cures naturally, it is hard to naturally explain Francis Pascal, cured of “blindness” and “paralysis of the lower limbs,” at the age of three years and ten months, on August 28, 1938. While the keenness of his vision remained less than the average person’s, this child who had been completely blind before the cure was now an active reader and writer. Other blind persons were also cured of documented, organic optic atrophy, able thereafter to see. One might also consider Marie Bigot, cured of blindness, deafness, and hemiplegia, on October 10, 1954. (Keener 682)

Based on multiple surveys and polls, Keener notes that hundreds of millions of people alive today claim that they have witnessed or experienced miraculous healings (205, 238-239, 313, 342, 505-506). Again, it is not that hundreds of millions of people believe in miracles (though that is true too), it is that hundreds of millions of people claim to have witnessed or experienced miracles. If miracles do not occur today, as atheists contend, then they must believe that each and every one of these hundreds of millions of people are either lying or mistaken. A substantial argument needs to be provided to justify such a belief. Merely asserting miracles do not happen today is not going to cut it.

In the interest of remaining neutral towards the occurrence of miracles in this post, I will not assume the above quoted accounts are genuine miracles. I will merely point out that the kinds of miracles narrated in the New Testament are narrated by credible, modern eyewitnesses and, therefore, the presence of miracle accounts in the NT is not a sufficient reason to doubt that the NT documents are rooted in eyewitness testimony.

Moving on, DD comments on another supposed problem:

The classic problem, of course, is that the primary historical evidence is highly biased: the documents that survive were mostly written by men who wrote for the explicit purpose of persuading people that Jesus was the Christ. What’s more, we know historically that the early Christians went out of their way to destroy any evidence and/or testimony that was contrary to the message they wanted to preach, even from non-Christian sources, so we don’t have much in the way of balance.

It is true that the NT documents were largely written either to persuade people that Jesus was the Christ or to confirm them in that belief. However, the mere fact that an author writes with a purpose and has a bias is not a sufficient reason to accuse the author of being inaccurate on historical matters. Each and every historian writes with a purpose and has biases, yet we do not throw our hands up in despair that nothing can be learned of history.

Unfortunately DD does not provide any examples of when Christians destroyed documents they found unpalatable. I can merely note that the accounts of Christ in Josephus (even after Christian additions are removed) and Tacitus are consistent with the portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels and that the Church Fathers preserved, to some degree, the views of Jews, pagans, and heretics in writings such as Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, and Origen’s Against Celsus. We also have many extant apocryphal Christian writings, including the Nag Hammadi Library.

DD continues:

Truth is consistent with itself. If we want to know whether the Gospels are true, we need to ask, “Are these stories consistent with themselves? Are they consistent with the real world we see all around us?” While modern scholarship does help, there has long been fairly conclusive evidence that the Bible is a myth (or rather, a not-entirely-harmonious collection of myths) that ought to be taken with a big grain of salt, just from the internal and external contradictions.

While DD speaks of the Bible in this quote his post is focused mostly on the NT and the Gospels in particular. Neither the Gospels nor the other NT writings are of the genre of myth (a notoriously difficult genre to define). As demonstrated by Richard A. Burridge in What are the Gospels?, the Gospels are Greco-Roman biographies. But it may be more likely that DD is using the term “myth” to indicate the Gospels are not historically accurate so let us look at his other questions.

Are the Gospels consistent with each other? I would say yes. There may be discrepancies but these are usually minor while the core of the accounts are similar. Historians routinely use sources that are not perfectly harmonious with each other. To object to the accuracy of the Gospels on such grounds is to apply a double standard when doing history. One can also note that the Gospels are consistent with non-canonical documents and archaeological discoveries.

Are the Gospels consistent with the “real world”? I am guessing DD is implying that since miracles do not occur in the “real world” then the Gospels are not consistent with the “real world”? But Keener has already demonstrated that miracle accounts are ubiquitous in the real world. That Jesus considered himself a miracle worker, that followers of Jesus considered him a miracle worker, and that non-Christians considered him a doer of marvelous deeds cannot be objected to on the basis that it is incompatible with the “real world.”

Ironically, DD then makes historically dubious claims himself:

The Gospel is a story, and the “New Testament” is the official Catholic version of that story, selected centuries later by theologians (not historians) for the express purpose of promoting the official version. Right from the start, Craig tries to implant the idea that the New Testament is somehow more authoritative and trustworthy, even though we know they’re unashamedly biased. Naturally, he follows the traditional apologetic for the canon of Scripture.

The canonical Gospels were not selected centuries after they were written. The four canonical Gospels were surely authoritative in the time of Irenaeus (ca. 180) (Against Heresies 3.11.8). That’s less than a century after the Gospel of John was completed if you accept it was written in the 90s.  In Who Chose the Gospels?, C. E. Hill shows that the canonical Gospels were chosen long before the Roman Catholic Church had any wide-reaching power. DD is also unfair towards Craig. Historians consider the canonical Gospels to be the best sources for reconstructing Jesus’ life because they are the extant sources closest to the witnesses of Christ’s ministry. Their canonicity is irrelevant for the historian’s purpose.

DD again mentions vague claims that early Christians destroyed books:

Plus they burned a bunch of books so that we wouldn’t need to bother comparing them to the official accounts. It wouldn’t do to leave behind evidence that might show, say, that the Gospels of Peter and of Thomas actually had historical antecedents dating back before the Gospel of John. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t, but we won’t know now because early Christians were very good at wiping out any evidence not in their favor.

It is not clear what alleged events he is referring to but the first sentence is historically inaccurate. I already noted above that early Christians wrote (multiple-)book-length responses to non-Christian arguments, which required them to collect these heretical books (Hill 58-62). It is not possible that the earliest Christians had the power to destroy books even if they wanted to:

At this point in history [the time of Irenaeus], as Raymond Starr points out, even the emperor had trouble pulling off such a demand [the destruction of books]. Because books were all copied by hand and privately circulated, ‘suppression or official discouragement could never be entirely successful nor were they expected to be. When a book was removed or barred by order of the emperor from the imperial public libraries, the author would be disgraced, but his writings were not destroyed, since they could still circulate in private hands.’

Needless to say, no church — not Irenaeus’s church in Lyons nor the church in Rome — had anything resembling the kind of imperial power (the kind which would later be exercised against Christians by the Roman government) to search out private copies of a detested book, seize them, and destroy them. In sum, Irenaeus did not demand that congregations destroy any Gospels, alleged apostolic letters, or revelations he had not ‘chosen’ for them. (Hill 61-62)

Both the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas are still extant. A few scholars attempt to employ these two Gospels in their historical reconstructions but most reject them because they are later and clearly, in some places, dependent on the canonical Gospels. In other words, the canonical Gospels are preferred on historical, not canonical, grounds.

DD then writes:

Craig’s next maneuver is to invoke the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” in order to claim that the burden of proof is on the skeptic. This is a classic debate strategy: if you have the evidence to back up your claim, then you want the burden of proof, because this will give you the opportunity to present your evidence. Craig, however, can’t back up his claims, since the Gospel talks about things that are entirely unlike anything we see in real life. Therefore his goal is to push the burden of proof onto his opponents.

I don’t have the context of Craig’s statement but I think there is a context in which it makes sense. If the Gospels are historically accurate when we can check their claims then it is likely that they are accurate when we cannot check their claims. In this context it is reasonable that the earliest accounts are “innocent until proven guilty.” The believer has provided evidence for the general accuracy of the Gospels and the onus is on the skeptic to respond to this evidence.

Later, DD comments on Craig’s point that the Jews transmitted sacred traditions accurately:

Look at point 3, that “Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was reliable.” That would be great if Moses had written the New Testament. But he didn’t. Jewish traditions don’t apply to the gospels because the gospels were not part of Jewish sacred tradition. Even if you say that Christian stories later became a sacred tradition, that doesn’t cover the initial development of the tradition.

Craig does not need to refer to the transmission of Jewish sacred tradition. Birger Gerhardsson notes that Jews faithfully transmitted the teachings of rabbis despite the fact that rabbinic teaching was not sacred like the Hebrew Bible. We merely need to consider the Gospels in their historical context and in light of statements from early Christians about the transmission of tradition. The notion that the Jesus tradition was transmitted in a completely chaotic and unreliable manner has no evidence to support it. Note again that I am not defending the claim that the Gospels are perfectly accurate on historical matters, I am merely noting they are generally accurate.

Bibliography

Burridge, Richard A. What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. 2nd ed. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004.

Gerhardsson, Birger. Memory and Manuscript with Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity. Revised. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998.

Gerhardsson, Birger. The Reliability of Gospel Tradition. Hendrickson Publishers, 2001.

Hill, C. E. Who Chose the Gospels?: Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy. Oxford University Press, USA, 2010.

Keener, Craig S. Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts. Baker Academic, 2011.

5:12 Through Silvanus, whom I know to be a faithful brother, I have written to you briefly, in order to encourage you and testify that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it.

Silvanus/Silas was often Paul’s partner in ministry (Acts 15:22-34; 16:19-29; 17:4-15; 18:5; 2 Cor 1:19; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1). In Acts 15:23 he carried a letter from Jerusalem to Antioch. The phrase “through Silvanus” indicates that he also carried this letter to the churches of Asia Minor.  The phrase does not mean that Silvanus helped compose the letter (Jobes loc. 4952ff., Schreiner 248-249). It would be a little strange for Silvanus to commend himself as a “faithful brother” (Elliott 875).

Some have objected that neither Silvanus nor any other single messenger is likely to have delivered the epistle to all the churches throughout the five provinces mentioned in 1:1. It is not necessary to the hypothesis to assume that this was the case. Silvanus could simply have carried the letter to its port of entry, probably either Amisus or Amastris on the Black Sea, and been officially welcomed there and at a few other congregations in the vicinity. His personal greetings from Peter would then have been conveyed by word of mouth from congregation to congregation through the provinces along with the letter itself. This would help to explain Cyrpian’s otherwise odd references to “The Epistle of Peter to Pontus” (Testimonia 37, 39) or “to the people in Pontus” (Testimonia 36). (Michaels 307)

Because Silvanus is mentioned by name but with no other information, it would seem that Peter’s readers must have known who he was. However, Peter’s affirmation that the apostle regards Silvanus as a faithful brother may hint of something that would make such an affirmation advisable, especially if Silvanus is carrying the letter. This suggests that even if the recipients were familiar with Silvanus by reputation, they did not know him personally.(Jobes loc. 4980-4983)

The exhortations in the letter itself are the “true grace of God.”

In this verse the author succinctly condenses the heart of his message: those who have been reborn to new life through the resurrection of Jesus Christ and incorporated into the family of faith are what they are by the grace of God. Until their final salvation, they must now live in and through this grace as the graced people of God. Their challenge is to stand fast in the divine grace that shapes their past, their present, and their future. (Elliott 880)

5:13 The church in Babylon, chosen together with you, greets you, and so does Mark, my son.

The Greek literally reads “she who is in Babylon.” However, the NET is correct in that “she” refers to the Christian community in “Babylon” (2 Jn 1, 13). In other writings the church is Christ’s bride (Eph 5:22-33; Rev 19:7-9).

There is virtually unanimous agreement among modern interpreters that the referent of “Babylon” is actually Rome. There is less agreement about the significance of this symbol. The reference to Babylon is sometimes offered as evidence for dating 1 Peter to after AD 70, for it was after the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem that subversive apocalyptic writings, such as John’s Revelation in the NT, adopted “Babylon” as a code word for Rome. However, this sense cannot be assumed for its occurrence here because the genre of 1 Peter is not apocalyptic and the letter contains nothing overtly subversive about the Roman state (in fact, quite the contrary)

Given the several echoes of the greeting of 1:1-2 found here, the reference to Babylon is clearly to be read in parallel with “Diaspora” in 1:1, a pairing not typically found in apocalyptic where Babylon appears as the great evil city. Nothing is said of Babylon’s evil in 1 Peter, leading Michaels to observe that the only thing wrong with Babylon is that it is not home. Along the same lines, Davids writes, “So Rome equals Babylon becomes a … symbol for the capital of the place of exile away from the true inheritance in heaven.” Most likely “Babylon” forms an inclusio with “Diaspora” in the opening verse and thus functions “to identify both the author and his Christian community as sharing with the readers such exile status”.

As Kelly astutely observes, if the reference to Babylon functions merely as an inclusio with Diaspora to frame the book in exile language, it is less clear that Babylon is “intended to designate any specific locality at all.” He cites the “waters of Babylon” in Ps. 137:1 as a similar reference that Jews of the Diaspora could identify as whatever place in the world they happened to live. The reference to Babylon here might function similarly. In that case, “there would thus be no reference to Rome or any other place in this verse,” though Rome might otherwise have been known to be the location of Peter. Thiede argues similarly that Babylon here and the expression in Acts 12:17 that Peter left Jerusalem “for another place” are both allusions to being in a state of exile and neither is intended to specify location. The latter phrase, Thiede argues, is an echo of Ezek. 12:3 LXX, the only other place in the biblical corpus where the phrase eis heteron topon is used in reference to going into the Babylonian exile. It may be that Rome as the location of the composition of 1 Peter leans much more heavily on tradition than on exegesis.

If so, in 1 Pet. 5:13 Peter is simply sending greetings from the Christian community from wherever he writes, and from his associate Mark. But even if Acts 12:17 is intended only to say that Peter was driven into exile away from Jerusalem, Rome cannot be ruled out as the destination to which he fled. The reference could be intended as a comparison. Just as God’s people had been driven out of Jerusalem and sent into exile in Babylon, the capital city of their oppressors centuries before, Peter himself has been driven from Jerusalem by the Roman powers and is sojourning in exile in the capital city of his oppressors. (Jobes loc. 5002-5022; cf. Michaels 310-311)

I think Jobes’ makes a decent point that the way the word “Babylon” is used does not require that 1 Peter was written after AD 70. However, the evidence outside of the letter is strong and unanimous that 1 Peter was written in the city of Rome (Elliott 882-887).

“Mark” is John Mark (Acts 12:12, 25; 13:4, 13; 15:35-39; Col 4:10; 2 Tim 5:11; Phlm 24). Eusebius notes that Mark wrote under Peter’s influence (Hist. eccl. 2.15.1-2; 3.39.15; 6.25.5). Mark is not Peter’s biological son. The term designates the fatherly love Peter had for the younger Mark. He may have been mentioned because he was known to some of the recipients of this letter (Col 4:10; Phlm 24; 2 Tim 4:11).

5:14 Greet one another with a loving kiss. Peace to all of you who are in Christ.

Paul enjoins a holy kiss (Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess 5:26). The kiss represents a physical manifestation of the affection Christians are to have for each other. In the Greco-Roman world a kiss was usually shared among family members, therefore its inclusion here highlights the familial nature of the Christian community (Michaels 313).

Closing the letter with a peace wish is significant. Believers in the Petrine churches were buffeted by trials and persecutions. The stress of life was significant. What believers need in such a situation is God’s peace and strength, a peace that will enable them to stand (5:12) amidst the pressures of the present evil age. Such peace will fortify believers so they can endure opposition and persevere to the end, so that they will receive an eschatological reward. (Schreiner 252)

The survival of the Christian community attests to the letter’s success, a success repeated whenever Christians find, in threatening times, comfort and peace in its words. (Achtemeier 356)

Bibliography

Achtemeier, Paul J. 1 Peter. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996.

Elliott, John Hall. 1 Peter. Yale University Press, 2007.

Jobes, Karen. 1 Peter. Kindle Edition. Baker Academic, 2005.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. 1 Peter. Thomas Nelson, 1988.

Schreiner, Thomas R. 1, 2 Peter, Jude. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2003.

5:1 So as your fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings and as one who shares in the glory that will be revealed, I urge the elders among you: 5:2 Give a shepherd’s care to God’s flock among you, exercising oversight not merely as a duty but willingly under God’s direction, not for shameful profit but eagerly.

The position of elder was a widespread leadership position in the early church (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22-23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:28; 1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:5; Jas 5:14). Peter identifies himself as a fellow elder to indicate solidarity with those he exhorts.

Peter personally understands their responsibilities, their fears, and the pressures that assail them because he also bears the responsibilities of an elder. The apostle embraces his calling as a leader in the church, a calling that will lead to his martyrdom in Rome. He is not asking them to do anything that he himself is not also doing.

Some interpreters see this self-description as an indication that the apostle Peter could not have written this letter, on the assumption that an apostle would not describe himself as simply a “fellow elder” Norbert Brox assumes pseudonymous authorship, arguing that this is a self-reference to the actual author of 1 Peter, who was in fact an anonymous elder. However, the terms “apostle” and “elder” were not necessarily mutually exclusive even during the lifetime of the apostles. In fact, it is difficult to imagine that an apostle would not also be considered an elder both in the local church where he resided and throughout the church at large. The author of the letter has already established his apostolic authority in 1:1, and self-reference to being a “fellow elder” is appropriate if his purpose here is to empathetically express his solidarity with those he is consoling and encouraging. The term “fellow elder” may in fact argue against pseudonymous authorship, since it seems more likely that a pseudonymous author consistent in his guise would simply reassert Peter’s apostolic authority here as the basis for exhorting the leaders of the church. (Jobes loc. 4661-4669)

It is debatable whether Peter is claiming to be an eyewitness to Christ’s sufferings or not. Note he is not claiming to have witnessed all of Christ’s sufferings, so the fact that he fled after Jesus’ arrest does not rule out the possibility that he is claiming to be an eyewitness to some of Christ’s sufferings. The Greek term martys can refer to an eyewitness of something or to one who bears witness to something (Elliott 819). Based on the context, the author is probably saying that, like the elders of Asia Minor, he too bears witness to the sufferings of Christ (Michaels 280-281). The “glory that will be revealed” is a reference to the second coming not the transfiguration or resurrection.

Elders are to care for God’s flock, not their own flock. In John 21:16 Jesus tells Peter to “Shepherd my sheep” and here Peter passes that teaching on. Elders oversee the church. At the time of this writing, the positions of “elder” and “overseer” are most likely the same position (Acts 20:17-18; Titus 1:5-7; 1 Clem. 42.4; 44.1-6). Elders should not serve because they have to nor out of greed. They should serve because they truly desire to follow God’s direction.

5:3 And do not lord it over those entrusted to you, but be examples to the flock.

Elders are not to oppress others to serve their own interests, but are to imitate the example of Jesus himself (Mt 20:25-28; Mk 10:42-45; Lk 22:25-27; 1 Pet 2:21-23).

5:4 Then when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that never fades away.

Jesus is the Chief Shepherd (cf. Jn 10:11, 14; Heb 13:20).  The term reminds elders that they are servants and not autocrats.

The “crown,” actually a victor’s wreath, has to do not with the authority to rule but with a divinely conferred honor (cf. “praise, glory, and honor” in 1:7). The genitive “of glory” is appositional: the “crown” or “wreath” is glory, the same glory to which Peter referred in 1:7, 4:13-14, and 5:1, the glory to be revealed at the future “revelation of Jesus Christ.” It must be remembered that “crown” is a metaphor, while “glory” is the reality that interprets the metaphor (cf. “crown of life” in James 1:12, Rev 2:10). The accent is not on the elders as individuals, as if each will have his or her own “crown,” but rather on the common glory in which all are “sharers.” This would be true even if Peter had spoken of “crowns” in the plural, but the fact that “crown” as well as “glory” is singular puts it beyond question. The other uses of “glory” in 1 Peter make it clear, in fact, that the “crown of glory” promised here is not for elders alone, but for all who share in the Christian hope. The elders will receive their “crown” like everyone else in the congregation, for doing what they were called to do (cf. 3:9). (Michaels 287)

Peter contrasted the crown elders will receive with the leafy crowns bestowed in the Greco-Roman world. Such crowns were given after athletic victories or military conquests (Martial, Epig. 2.2; Pliny, Hist. nat. 15.5; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 8.15). Such crowns faded as time elapsed, but the crown given by God (cf. 1 Pet 5:10) will never fade. (Schreiner 236)

5:5 In the same way, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. And all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.

The term neoteroi is the comparative form of the adjective neos (new or young) and was never used to refer to an office of the church. The contrast is not between the older men and the younger men of the church-for which neanias or neaniskos would be expected. Rather it is between those who have the seniority and the commensurate standing that qualifies them to be presbyteroi in contrast to those who, for whatever reason, do not. Official elders of the church were naturally chosen from those who held seniority in the faith, which most often also corresponded to physical age. Those not (yet) qualified to be elders were “younger” in standing in the church. The term neoteroi therefore refers “to those who were not elders, that is to say all other church members”. (Jobes loc. 4772-4776)

The phrase “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble” is drawn from Prov 3:34 LXX. A better translation of hyperephanois (“proud”) is “arrogant” (Elliott 848).

5:6 And God will exalt you in due time, if you humble yourselves under his mighty hand 5:7 by casting all your cares on him because he cares for you.

God’s “mighty hand” (krataian cheira) is a term often associated with God’s delivering Israel out of Egypt (Ex 3:19; 6:1; 13:3, 9, 14, 16; 32:11; Dt 3:24; 4:34; 5:15; 6:21; 7:8, 19; 9:26, 29; 11:2; 26:8; 29:3; 34:12; Dan 9:15). Just as God delivered Israel from Egypt he will deliver the Christians of Asia Minor. The theme that the humble will be exalted can be traced back to the teachings of Jesus (Mt 23:12; Lk 14:11; 18:14). The believer humbles himself by casting his cares on God. Verse 7 probably alludes to Ps 55:22 (cf. Mt 6:25-34; Lk 12:22-32).

5:8 Be sober and alert. Your enemy the devil, like a roaring lion, is on the prowl looking for someone to devour.

Spiritual sobriety and alertness are necessary because the threat of spiritual destruction is real.

Peter portrayed the devil here as a roaring lion seeking to devour its prey. The devil roars like a lion to induce fear in the people of God. In other words, persecution is the roar by which he tries to intimidate believers in the hope that they will capitulate at the prospect of suffering. If believers deny their faith, then the devil has devoured them, bringing them back into his fold. The contrast between God and devil is quite striking. God tenderly cares for his children (5:6-7), inviting them to bring their worries to him so that he can sustain them. God promises to protect his flock (v. 2) in all their distress. Conversely, the devil’s aim is not to comfort but to terrify believers. He does not want to deliver them from fear but to devour their faith. Peter warned believers to be vigilant. The roaring of the devil is the crazed anger of a defeated enemy, and if they do not fear his ferocious bark, they will never be consumed by his bite. (Schreiner 242)

5:9 Resist him, strong in your faith, because you know that your brothers and sisters throughout the world are enduring the same kinds of suffering.

Two points stand out in this verse. The first is the universal nature of Christian suffering. It is not a localized phenomenon; it will occur wherever the Christian community takes seriously its commitment to God. The reason is that in making that commitment of trust, they align themselves against the ultimate forces of evil, and hence can expect only unremitting hostility. Christians are enmeshed in a universal eschatological battle between good and evil, between God and the devil, and so long as this conflict rages, suffering will constitute the normal state of affairs for Christians. The second point to emerge here is the fact that the origin of suffering is not God but the devil. While suffering in opposition to evil and for good has been identified as suffering in accordance with God’s will (3:17; 4:17-19), it is clear here that God’s will is for Christians to resist the blandishments of evil and to suffer the inevitable consequences of their trusting relationship to God. Such suffering is thus in accord with God’s will, even though its origin is with the devil, since that suffering means the Christians remain faithful to their trust in God. In the choice between suffering and apostasy, it is God’s will that Christians eschew apostasy, even when that means inevitably that suffering will be inflicted upon them. (Achtemeier 344)

Here we have further evidence that the persecution in 1 Peter was not an officially enforced policy from Rome. No evidence exists that Nero (or Domitian for that matter) systematically and officially persecuted Christians. What Peter had in mind instead was the pattern of discrimination and abuse experienced by Christians in the Greco-Roman world. Believers stood out as social outcasts because they would not participate in any activities devoted to foreign deities and refused to live as they did formerly (1 Pet 4:3-4). Their life as spiritual exiles explains why believers were mistreated on an informal and regular basis throughout the empire. (Schreiner 244)

5:10 And, after you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace who called you to his eternal glory in Christ will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.

The sufferings in the this life will seem to have lasted only a “little while” (oligon) when compared to the eternal glory (cf. 2 Cor 4:16-18). The Greek verb katartisei means “put in order,” “mend,” “fully train,” “restore,” “make whole,” “complete” (Elliott 866). The Greek term sterixei means “set up,” “fix firmly,” “establish,” “hold up,” “reinforce,” “support,” “confirm,” “strengthen” (Elliott 866). The Greek term sthenosei is virtually synonymous with sterixei (Elliott 867). The verb themeliosei means “make,” “provide a solid foundation,” “ground firmly,” “establish” (Elliott 867). The point of these terms is that God will perfect the Christian community.

5:11 To him belongs the power forever. Amen.

To the original readers it may have appeared that Rome had the power. But, in actuality, God is ultimately in power.

Bibliography

Achtemeier, Paul J. 1 Peter. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996.

Elliott, John Hall. 1 Peter. Yale University Press, 2007.

Jobes, Karen. 1 Peter. Kindle Edition. Baker Academic, 2005.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. 1 Peter. Thomas Nelson, 1988.

Schreiner, Thomas R. 1, 2 Peter, Jude. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2003.

4:12 Dear friends, do not be astonished that a trial by fire is occurring among you, as though something strange were happening to you.

The phrase “trial by fire” is a metaphor referring to the purification or refining of God’s people (Prov 27:21; Ps 66:10; Zech 13:9; Mal 3:1-4; Rom 5:3-5; Jas 1:2-4; 1 Pet 1:6-7). “Just as intense fire refines precious metal, so the fiery ordeal tests and proves the genuineness and constancy of faith-as-commitment” (Elliott 772). The Christian readers may be astonished that, as followers of God, they are suffering. But Peter tells them not to be surprised. Even Christ underwent suffering.

4:13 But rejoice in the degree that you have shared in the sufferings of Christ, so that when his glory is revealed you may also rejoice and be glad.

The phrase “in the degree that” (katho) is better translated as “since” (Elliott 774). In other words, the rejoicing is not contingent on the degree of suffering but on suffering itself. The “sufferings of Christ” (the Christ in Greek) refer to sufferings that occur because of the readers’ allegiance to Jesus Christ. How a believer responds to suffering is an indication of whether they truly belong to God. The one who rejoices in present sufferings will “rejoice and be glad” (Matt 5:12) at the second coming of Christ (“when his glory is revealed”).

4:14 If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory, who is the Spirit of God, rests on you.

The phrase “insulted for the name of Christ” helps us put the “trial by fire” (4:12) into context. At first glance one might think the “trial by fire” refers to physical torture or death, but this verse makes it clear that verbal abuse is in view (as it is elsewhere in the letter). Peter follows the teaching of Jesus in stating that those insulted for the name of Christ are blessed (Matt 5:11). The suffering Christian is blessed because his willingness to undergo suffering demonstrates that he belongs to God.

The last part of the verse, concerning the Spirit resting on the believer, is unclear in meaning. The general point seems to be that those who suffer for the name of Christ are in some sense experiencing the glory to come. The phrase may allude to Isa 11:1-2 LXX where the Spirit will rest on the Messiah.

Peter understands that it was the Spirit of Christ who spoke to the prophets, such as Isaiah, revealing the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow (1 Pet. 1:10-12). In 4:14, Peter claims that the same Spirit of God predicted to rest upon the Messiah also rests on the believer who is willing to suffer for Jesus Christ. Peter consoles his readers that because the same Spirit of glory and of God rests upon them, their current suffering is as Christ’s was, a prelude to the glory to follow. (Jobes loc. 4476-4479)

4:15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer or thief or criminal or as a troublemaker.

This verse indicates that not all suffering is the result of Christian behavior. The Greek word kakopoios (“criminal”) refers to doing wrong in general and is not limited to criminal acts (2:12, 14; Schreiner 224). A better translation might be “wrongdoer.” The meaning of the Greek word allotriepiskopos (“troublemaker”) is somewhat uncertain because it appears in no Greek literature written prior to 1 Peter. Examining the word part-by-part suggests a meaning of “watching over another’s affairs.” Something along the lines of “troublemaker,” “mischief-maker,” “busy-body,” or “troublesome meddler” is probably intended, although certainty cannot be had (Schreiner 224-225; cf. Achtemeier 311-313). This verse is not a description of what the readers have done but a warning against what must not occur.

4:16 But if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but glorify God that you bear such a name.

The call to renounce shame focuses on actions that are shameful. Specifically, Christians would act shamefully by denying Christ before unbelievers or by failing to persevere in the faith (cf. Mark 8:38; 2 Tim 1:8, 12, 16; 2:15). Hence, those who are ashamed would be guilty of apostasy. By way of contrast believers glorify God by confessing and praising his name publicly (cf. Rom 15:6; 2 Cor 9:13). They glorify God in the name “Christian” by enduring such suffering with joy (v. 13), pleased that they are privileged to suffer because of their allegiance to Jesus Christ. The final phrase of the verse, “in that name” (NASB, en to onomati touto), probably is a dative of sphere, signifying that believers suffer for the epithet “Christian.” (Schreiner 226)

4:17 For it is time for judgment to begin, starting with the house of God. And if it starts with us, what will be the fate of those who are disobedient to the gospel of God?

Some commentators see an allusion here to Ezek 9:5-6, Zech 13:9, or Mal 3:1-5. It is unlikely that Peter is alluding to these passages for, in context, these passages speak of Israel being judged for violating the covenant while Peter’s readers are judged for obeying the gospel (Jobes loc. 4532ff.). The “house of God” is the Christian community (2:4-5). Verse 18 indicates that eschatological judgment is in view. This verse indicates that eschatological judgement is, in some sense,  already happening to Christians when they suffer at the hand of unbelievers. As the surrounding context makes clear, Christians are not judged through suffering in the sense that they are punished for sins. The Christian readers are suffering for obeying the gospel and this brings glory to God. The readers are judged in the sense that they are picked out as true followers of Christ. The “trial by fire” (4:12) sorts out those who are truly Christ’s from those who are not. The question at the end of the verse indicates that it is better to suffer now than later.

4:18 And if the righteous are barely saved, what will become of the ungodly and sinners?

This verse is drawn from Prov 11:31 LXX. The NET phrase “barely [molis] saved” may be misleading to English readers.

Peter was not saying that the righteous are scarcely saved, as if they were almost consigned to destruction and were just pulled from the flames. What he meant was that the righteous are saved “with difficulty.” The difficulty envisioned is the suffering believers must endure in order to be saved. God saves his people by refining and purifying them through suffering. It is implied here that salvation is eschatological, a gift that believers will receive after enduring suffering (cf. 1:5, 9). If the godly are saved through the purification of suffering, then the judgment of the “ungodly and sinner” must be horrific indeed. The verb “will become” (phaneitai) refers to the eschatological judgment of unbelievers. Peter wrote this to motivate believers to endure in suffering, and we have seen a similar argument in 4:3-6. Suffering may be difficult now, but by participating in the pain of following Christ believers escape the condemnation coming upon the wicked. (Schreiner 229)

4:19 So then let those who suffer according to the will of God entrust their souls to a faithful Creator as they do good.

The point is not that suffering as such is God’s will, as might be inferred from 1:6 and 3:17, but rather that obedience to God can entail innocent suffering as a consequence and that such suffering is part of a larger divine purpose — the conquest of sin (4:1), the testing of faith’s probity (1:6-7; 4:12), the sharing in Christ’s experience (2:21-25; 3:18-22; 4:1, 13), and the glorification of God as vindicator of all innocent suffering (2:12, 23c; 3:9, 10-12, 13, 18c, 22; 4:6b, 16; 5:10). Like the Lord’s own passion, this innocent suffering is the cup that the Father has given (Mark 14:36/Matt 26:39/Luke 22:42) in order that children of God might learn and demonstrate obedience (cf. Heb 5:7-10 and 12:5-11; cf. 4:1-2). To be sure, their detractors could not effect this suffering unless this were allowed by God (John 19:10-11; cf. Matt 26:54-56; John 18:11). However, God’s will involves not only the freedom of believers from ultimate harm (3:13) but also their final passage from suffering to glory (1:6-9; 4:13-14; 5:10). (Elliott 805)

The reference to God as “Creator” implies his sovereignty. His “faithful” nature gives believers a reason to trust him. Trust in God is demonstrated by continuing to do good, even when it may result in suffering. “In a culture where Christian virtues were the cause of persecution, doing what God wants is precisely to entrust oneself to him even though the result of such trust will be suffering” (Achtemeier 318). Again, “soul” refers to the whole person and not the immaterial soul in distinction from the body (Michaels 273).

Bibliography

Achtemeier, Paul J. 1 Peter. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996.

Elliott, John Hall. 1 Peter. Yale University Press, 2007.

Jobes, Karen. 1 Peter. Kindle Edition. Baker Academic, 2005.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. 1 Peter. Thomas Nelson, 1988.

Schreiner, Thomas R. 1, 2 Peter, Jude. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2003.